The Commissionerof Incometax-Ii v. N.j. Steelspvt. Ltdthrough: None

$-8-13*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 190, 191, 192,193, 194 & 197/2014 THE COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-II Appellant Through:Mr. Kamal Sawhney,Sr. StandingCounselwithMr. Raghvendra,Jr. StandingCounsel,Mr. MukulMathurand Mr. ShikharGarg, Advocates. versus N.J. STEELSPVT. LTDThrough: None. Respondent CORAM:HON'BLEMR. JUSTICES. RAVINDRABHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA 0/„ ORDER18.05.2015 The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") dated 19.02.2013 - made for AYs-2003-04 2008-09. It is contendedthat the ITAT fall into error inholding in the circumstancesof the case that the assessmentsmadewere nullity in law. The brief facts are that search and seizure were operations conducted under Section 132 in the case of three individualsMr. B.K. Dhingra,Smt. Poonamand M/s MadhusudanBuildingsPvt.Ltd. on 20.10.2008. Apparently,the AO formed an opinion thatcertain materials found in the course of the search proceedmgs belonged to other parties and issued notice inter alia to one NJ.SteelsPvt. Ltd. Duringthe pendencyofthose proceedings,the N.J.Steels.Pvt. Ltd. were amalgamatedwithM/s Life TimeBuildconPvt.Ltd. in terms of an order ofthis Court under the CompaniesAct on19.02.2010. This fact was brought to the notice of the AO whoneverthelesswithoutissuing fresh notice to the transfereecompany,i.e., LifetimeBuildconPvt. Ltd., proceededto frame assessmentsinrespectofthe erstwhileassessee,i.e.,N.J. SteelsPvt. Ltd. The appealto the CIT (A) succeeded. The Revenue felt aggrievedapproached-the ITATwhichrejectedits appealreasoningas follows: "8. We have carefullyconsideredthe submissionin thisregardandperusedthe records. Wefullyconcurwith thefindingofthe Ld CommissionerofIncomeTax (A)^thatacompany incorporatedunder the Indian CompaniesActis a It takes its birth and life withjuristicperson. getsincorporationand it dies with the dissolutionas per theprovisionofthe CompaniesAct. On amalgamation,thecompany seizes to exist in the eyes of the law. Thus,assessment a dissolved isuponcompany impermissibleas there is noin Income Tax Act to make an provisionsassessmentthereupon.Ld CommissionerofIncome Tax(A) in our view, has therefore, rightly held thatassessmenton a which has been dissolved companybyamalgamationu/s 391 and 394 of the CompaniesAct,1956 is invalid Admittedly, assessee company in thepresent case stood dissolved on28.09.2010 onamalgamationwith MJs Life Time BuildcomP Ltd. andthe assessmentorder in the presentcase wasframedon31.12.2010. Hence, we uphold the order of the Ld.CommissionerofIncome Tax (A). 9.In view ofthe abovefindingon the maintainabilityofthe assessmentorderitselfwhich has been heldto beanullity, the issueraisedin the ordergroundsofappeals the revenuesand crossraisedpreferredby objectionbythe assessee have become infructuousand they do notneed adjudication." We noticedat the outsetthat the facts of this case are closelysimilarifnot entirelyidenticalwiththe decisionofthis Courtin SpiceEntertainmentLimited vs CIT, (ITA 475/2011): reported in 2012(280) ELT 43 followedby this Court in CIT, (C)-II v. Micra IndiaPvt. Ltd. (ITA441/2013),decidedon 22.01.2015. Giventhatthereisnothatthe AO was informedaboutthe dispute amalgamationduringthe pendencyof the assessmentitself, framing of assessmentwas inthe circumstancesunsupportablein law and anullity. We find no reasonto interferewiththe orderofthe ITAT. The appealsare accordinglydismissedas unmerited. S.RAVINDRABHAT,JR.K.GAUBA,J